FOOD STAMPS Follow the Money

FOOD
STAMPS
Follow the Money
Are Corporations
Profiting from
Hungry Americans?
Michele Simon
JUNE
2012
Food Stamps: Follow the Money Are Corporations Profiting from Hungry Americans?
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report examines what we know
(and don’t know) about how food
manufacturers, food retailers, and banks
benefit from the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (or SNAP, formerly
known as food stamps). The nation’s
largest food assistance program, SNAP
expenditures grew to $72 billion in 2011, up
from $30 billion just four years earlier, and
is projected to increase even more if the
economy does not improve.
Right now, Congress is debating the
2012 Farm Bill—and some politicians are
proposing massive cuts to SNAP at a time
when more Americans than ever need
this important lifeline. Meanwhile, some
health experts are raising questions about
whether it makes sense to allow SNAP
purchases for unhealthy products such
as soda and candy. Advocates are also
looking for ways to incentivize healthy
food purchases. While much attention
has focused on how farm subsidies fuel
our cheap, unhealthy food supply, SNAP
represents the largest, most overlooked
corporate subsidy in the farm bill.
Our research found that at least three
powerful industry sectors benefit from
SNAP: 1) major food manufacturers such
as Coca-Cola, Kraft, and Mars; 2) leading
food retailers such as Walmart and
Kroger; and 3) large banks, such as J.P.
Morgan Chase, which contract with states
to help administer SNAP benefits.
Each of these sectors has a critical stake
in debates over SNAP, as evidenced by
lobbying reports, along with important
data being kept secret.
Key findings about corporate lobbying on SNAP:
• Powerful food industry lobbying groups
teamed up to oppose health-oriented
improvements to SNAP
• The food industry also joined forces with
anti-hunger groups to lobby against SNAP
improvements
• Companies such as Cargill, PepsiCo, and
Kroger lobbied Congress on SNAP, while
also donating money to America’s top antihunger organizations
• At least nine states have proposed bills
to make health-oriented improvements to
SNAP, but none have passed, in part due to
opposition from the food industry
• Coca-Cola, the Corn Refiners of America,
and Kraft Foods all lobbied against a Florida
bill that aimed to disallow SNAP purchases
for soda and junk food
Key findings about how much money retailers gain from SNAP:
• Although such data is readily available,
neither USDA nor the states make public
how much money individual retailers make
from SNAP
Food Stamps: Follow the Money Are Corporations Profiting from Hungry Americans?
3
• Congress does not require data collection
• In California, a 7-year contract worth
on SNAP product purchases, despite such
$69 million went to Affiliated Computer
data being critical to effective evaluation
Services, a subsidiary of Xerox
• USDA told a journalist in Massachusetts
• In Florida, J.P. Morgan Chase enjoys a
he was not allowed to make public data on
5-year contract worth about $83 million, or
retailer redemptions from SNAP—after he
$16.7 million a year
received the data
• In New York, a 7-year deal originally paid
• In one year, nine Walmart Supercenters in
J.P. Morgan Chase $112 million for EBT
Massachusetts together received more than
services, and was recently amended to add
$33 million in SNAP dollars—over four times
$14.3 million—an increase of 13%
the SNAP money spent at farmers markets
• States are seeing unexpected increases
nationwide
in costs, while banks are reaping significant
• In two years, Walmart received about
windfalls from the economic downturn and
half of the one billion dollars in SNAP
increasing SNAP participation.
expenditures in Oklahoma
• One Walmart Supercenter in Tulsa,
Oklahoma received $15.2 million while
another (also in Tulsa) took in close to $9
million in SNAP spending.
Key findings about how much money
banks gain from SNAP:
• USDA does not collect national data on
how much money banks make on SNAP
• J.P. Morgan Chase has contracts for
Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) in half
the states, indicating a lack of competition
and significant market power
• Contract terms vary widely among states,
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
• Congress should not cut SNAP benefits at
this time of extreme need
• USDA should make data on SNAP retailer
redemptions available to the public
• Congress should require USDA to collect
data on SNAP product purchases
• USDA should collect data on SNAP bank
fees to assess and evaluate national costs
• USDA should grant states waivers
to experiment with health-oriented
improvements to SNAP.
indicating a lack of efficiency and standards
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks to Christopher Cook for superb research and writing, Brandy King, Susan Miller, Sarah Pearlman, and Amy Wong for expert
research assistance; to Siena Chrisman, Andy Fisher, Nick Freudenberg, Anna Lappé, and Ben Lilliston for helpful feedback on
earlier drafts; to Haven Bourque and Lena Brook for top-notch media outreach; and Ross Turner Design for professional layout.
This report was written by Michele Simon, public health attorney and president of Eat Drink Politics, an
industry watchdog consulting group. Contact her at: (510) 465-0322 or [email protected].
© 2012 Eat Drink Politics
Food Stamps: Follow the Money Are Corporations Profiting from Hungry Americans?
4
WHY THIS REPORT RIGHT NOW?
A debate over how SNAP dollars should
be spent erupted in 2010 when New
York City requested a waiver to conduct
a two-year trial to prevent SNAP funds
from being used to purchase sugarsweetened beverages. While the U.S.
Department of Agriculture denied New
York’s request, other state and local
policymakers around the country are
also seeking more flexibility from the
federal government. (USDA denied a
similar request from Minnesota in 2004.)
Several states have proposed bills similar
to New York’s approach, to modify
SNAP eligible items to promote health.
But each time, the food industry fought
these bills. To date, none have passed.
Food makers and retailers obviously
are huge beneficiaries of SNAP. But
the public is not privy to information
about exactly how much money these
companies are making. Moreover large
banks such as J.P. Morgan Chase receive
significant fees from electronic benefit
transfers or EBT. States bear much of
the burden of these administrative costs.
Is this the most cost-effective way to
administer a critical food assistance
program at a time of severe budget
cuts? Could we feed more needy
Americans with some of the profits these
corporations are making?
In this election year, food stamps have
been much in the news. In a campaign
trail jab, presidential candidate Newt
Gingrich referred to President Obama as
the “food stamp president”—even though
SNAP enrollment grew more rapidly
under the previous administration.1
It’s true that more Americans than ever
are relying on SNAP dollars to help make
ends meet during the recession. In fiscal
year 2011, both federal expenditures for
SNAP ($72 billion, excluding costs) and
the number of participants (45 million)
were the highest ever.2 More than one
in seven Americans receives SNAP
benefits. This year monthly participation
topped 46 million, and a report from the
Congressional Budget Office projects
these numbers to climb even higher,
peaking in 2014 and coming down after
that, assuming an economic recovery.3
In part because the program has increased
so dramatically in recent years, it has
become an easy target for some politicians.
In current budget and farm bill debates,
House Republicans are proposing drastic
cuts of $33 billion over ten years, while
the Senate is somewhat less draconian,
proposing a $4.5 billion reduction over ten
years. But any cuts to this vital program will
only hurt millions of American families.
Meanwhile, despite almost 15 percent of
Americans being hungry enough to rely
on federal assistance, the nation also
suffers from an epidemic of diet-related
chronic diseases such as diabetes. Often
these two problems are related because
Food Stamps: Follow the Money Are Corporations Profiting from Hungry Americans?
in many areas of the country, people
simply do not have access to healthy,
fresh, affordable food.
Given the adverse health consequences
from overconsumption of unhealthy
processed food and beverages, many
public health advocates have started
to question the wisdom of allowing
government funds to be used to
purchase such products. In response,
groups advocating for anti-hunger
programs strongly defend the current
policy of allowing participants to
purchase (almost) any foods and
beverages.
Thus, an unfortunate divide has formed,
pitting some public health advocates
5
against certain anti-hunger groups.
Meanwhile, the food industry, along
with the banks, have escaped the public
limelight of this debate. Given the huge
economic stakes—SNAP is projected to
top $80 billion in the next fiscal year—
this report examines how much food
makers, retailers, and banks benefit from
a program that is intended for improving
nutrition for those who need it most.
The goal of this report is to provide
policy makers, advocates, and SNAP
participants with the information needed
to develop policies that ensure SNAP
resources are used to reduce food
insecurity and promote healthier diets,
and not to subsidize the profits of the
food industry or banks.
2008 Farm Bill Budget
Food assistance comprised about 68 percent of the 2008 Farm Bill budget—almost all of it spent on
SNAP. The next three largest programs are relatively small wedges of the farm bill pie.4 The program
could be larger because as of 2009, only 72 percent of Americans who qualified for SNAP were enrolled.
12%
Food Assistance
10%
68%
9%
1%
Commodity Support
Crop Insurance
Conservation
Additional Programs
Food Stamps: Follow the Money Are Corporations Profiting from Hungry Americans?
6
How SNAP works
Congress
approves Farm Bill
budget for USDA
USDA administers
SNAP, shares admin
costs with states
50/50
States
enroll
participants
FEDERAL RESERVE*
pays retailers directly
per bank authorization
States
contract
with banks
for EBT
services
Participants
get EBT cards
and shop at
authorized
retailers
*Source: U.S Government Accountability Office,
“Food Stamp Program: Options for Delivering
Fnancial Incentives to Participants for Puchasing
Targeted Foods,” July 2008.
© 2012 Eat Drink Politics
Banks verify requests,
authorize payments from
Federal Reserve
Retailers
request
payment
through
banks
Retailers
buy eligible
foods
from food
makers
Food
Makers
Food Stamps: Follow the Money Are Corporations Profiting from Hungry Americans?
7
PROGRAM ORIGINS
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program is the nation’s largest and most
important food assistance program.
The original Food Stamp Program was
initiated toward the end of the Great
Depression to provide both a new market
for farmers’ surplus crops and relief for
Americans living in poverty.
As an article published in the Maine
Policy Review explains, the idea of
specifying product purchases is not
new; from the program’s inception,
the government placed significant
proscriptions on purchases.5 The idea
was to both help those in need, and
address the nation’s agricultural surplus.
It’s clear from this history that fresh
produce was the main thrust of the
program. The article notes:
In July 1941, at the height of the growing
season in many states, all fresh vegetables
were placed on the surplus list, while
canned and frozen vegetables were
excluded. At the same time...[according to
reveal any public or political kerfuffle over
the removal of soft drinks from the list of
items that food stamps could buy.
1964 Congressional debate over soda
In 1964, Congress took up the issue of
whether soda could be purchased with
food stamps.7 Senator Paul Douglas, a
liberal Democrat from Illinois, made this
impassioned plea for not including soda:
I do not want to include Coca-Cola or
Pepsi-Cola or any of that family. I like them
myself, but I do not believe they should be
permitted to be substitutes for milk. They
are not valuable for the diet. They can be
a waste of money especially for young
people. Personally, I think it is a great
mistake to include them…
My suggestion is that the item which is
included be not merely soft drinks, but
carbonated soft drinks. That would exclude
Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola, Dr. Pepper, and all
the varieties of the family of cola drinks.
If we include them, this will be used as
a news account at the time6] “soft drinks,
propaganda against an otherwise splendid
such as ginger ale, root beer, sarsaparilla,
and much needed measure. I want to help
pop, and all artificial mineral water, whether
the poor and hungry and not sacrifice them
carbonated or not,” were removed from the
for Coca-Cola. The Senator knows that
list, and retail food merchants were warned
these have no nutritional value—none at all.
not to sell those items for orange stamps
or blue stamps. However, natural fruit
juices, “such as grapefruit, orange, grape or
prune” were not considered “soft drinks”
and could still be sold for orange stamps.
Newspaper accounts from that era do not
... Actually, they are bad for kids, rather
than good for them. I hesitate to use such
language, but the only benefit I can see in
the present language is that it will increase
the sales of the Coca-Cola and other cola
and soft drink companies.
Food Stamps: Follow the Money Are Corporations Profiting from Hungry Americans?
Senator Douglas lost that vote and
that’s where things have stood ever
since. Then in 1975, Senator Bob Dole
(Republican from Kansas) noted
the purpose of food stamps: “The
program’s reason for being presumably
is the nutritional enhancement of poor
people’s diets.” He cited a report by
the American Enterprise Institute that
8
criticized the program for its “vast
increases in soft drink purchases and
other foods of low nutritional value
by program beneficiaries” combined
with surveys showing how such
purchases replaced healthier foods. Dole
concluded that such findings “clearly
would indict the program,” leaving it
vulnerable to attack.8
A brief history of food stamps*
1939 to
1943
A pilot version of food stamps begins. Program
participants buy orange stamps, to be used for food
and household items (including soap and matches, but
not alcohol, tobacco or prepared foods); also receive
blue stamps for commodity surplus foods, which
change weekly and include items such as beans, flour,
eggs, pork and fresh produce. As of 1941, soft drinks are
excluded from the program.
1964
The Food Stamp Program is signed into law as part of a series of policies meant to
address poverty. Participants still buy coupons for subsidized food purchases. A
proposal to limit the purchase of soft drinks and “luxury” foods is eliminated in the
final bill. Alcohol and tobacco are still excluded, as are imported foods.
1973
Garden seeds and plants added as approved items. Imported food ban lifted.
1977
Participants are no longer required to purchase food stamps. Restaurant meal
program begins for seniors, disabled, and homeless people.
1996
Welfare reform and changes in food stamp administration making eligibility more
difficult contribute to a dramatic decrease in participation.
2000
Changes made to streamline program: eligibility re-expanded; re-certification
becomes easier; Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) card used nationwide, modeled on
credit/debit cards, intended to reduce stigma and increase participation.
2008
Farm Bill: Program name changes to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP); Healthy Incentives Pilot authorized to research the
effectiveness of subsidizing healthy foods.
2011
Record enrollment in SNAP, at 46 million or 1 of every 7 Americans.
*Sources available from Enough to Eat: Food Assistance and the Farm Bill.
Food Stamps: Follow the Money Are Corporations Profiting from Hungry Americans?
9
BIG FOOD LOBBYING AGAINST
HEALTH IMPROVEMENTS TO SNAP
Given the huge stakes for the food and
beverage industry in the debate over
SNAP purchases, lobbying has played
a critical role in shaping public policy.
Unfortunately, due to reporting rules,
it’s difficult to paint the entire picture of
exactly who lobbied and how much money
was spent against any one proposal, such
as the New York City waiver application to
USDA. Nevertheless, the following sections
demonstrate the lobbying muscle the food
industry has brought to bear on this issue.
According to an article describing the
lobbying strategy in the New York Times9:
Some of the big industry groups have
signed up lobbying firms. The Duberstein
Group, led by Kenneth M. Duberstein, a
chief of staff to President Ronald Reagan,
reported that it had received $100,000 in
the first quarter of this year to lobby for
the Grocery Manufacturers Association
on various issues, including proposals to
restrict the use of food stamps.
National food lobbying groups who teamed up to fight NYC proposal to
USDA to remove soda from list of eligible food items for SNAP10
Food Marketing Institute: “food retailers and wholesalers”
National Grocers Association: “retail and wholesale grocers that
comprise the independent sector of the food distribution industry”
Grocery Manufacturers Association: “promotes and represents the
world’s food, beverage, and consumer products companies”
Snack Food Association: “international trade association of the snack
food industry representing snack manufacturers and suppliers”
National Confectioners Association: (candy makers: candyusa.com)
American Beverage Association: “represents the non-alcoholic,
refreshment beverage industry”
Food Stamps: Follow the Money Are Corporations Profiting from Hungry Americans?
Each corporation and trade group
lobbying against SNAP reform is
politically powerful and spends enormous
sums on influencing policy in general.
For example, PepsiCo reported it
spent $750,000 lobbying the federal
government in just the third quarter of
2011.11 Coca-Cola spent $1.15 million in just
the fourth quarter of last year.12 And that’s
only for federal lobbying, not state or
local issues like the New York City fight.
Moreover, food lobbyists have several
top anti-hunger groups on their side in
opposing SNAP changes.
America’s candy companies lobby to “preserve food choice”
10
presumably because its interests are also
at stake. On a page devoted to the issue
on the candy lobby’s website, one can
download several documents including:13
• “Preserving food choice” talking points
• “Coalition Statement on Preserving Food
Choice in SNAP/Food Stamps”
• USDA document from 2007, “Implications
of Restricting the Use of Food Stamp
Benefits—Summary” (from which the candy
lobby derives many of its talking points).
The candy lobby even worries that
children may be deprived. From their
“preserving choice” talking points:
Sometimes good intention goes too far. For
example, limiting food choices in SNAP could
Given policymakers’ emphasis on soda,
we would expect to see the soda lobby
strongly oppose the NYC waiver—but more
surprising is how the candy lobby has put
its resources into opposing improvements,
deny children an occasional treat during
the holidays such as Christmas, Halloween,
Hannukah, Easter, etc.—and for birthday
parties, shouldn’t parents be able to make
the decision whether treats will be offered?
Sampling of Big Food federal lobbying in 201114
ORGANIZATION
WHO THEY LOBBIED
ISSUE
American Beverage Association
Congress, USDA
“Sugar issues” & SNAP
Cargill
Congress, USDA
SNAP
Coca-Cola
Congress, USDA
SNAP*
Food Marketing Institute
Congress, USDA
SNAP, “preservation of food choice”
Grocery Manufacturers Association
Congress, USDA
“Restrict use” of SNAP
Kellogg
Congress
“SNAP ... in Farm Bill”
Kroger
Congress
“SNAP and WIC funding”
Mars
Congress
“Administration of SNAP”
PepsiCo
House
“Restrictions” on SNAP
Snack Food Association
Congress, USDA
SNAP, Farm Bill
J.P. Morgan Chase
USDA
EBT
Walmart
Congress, USDA, White House
“federal nutrition programs”
*Coca-Cola reported lobbying on, “ensuring choice and fairness in food assistance programs,” demonstrating the challenge
of researching which corporations and trade groups are lobbying specifically on SNAP.
Food Stamps: Follow the Money Are Corporations Profiting from Hungry Americans?
11
Who is Michael Torrey?
Profile of a lobbyist working to
stop improvements to SNAP
Michael Torrey is a lobbyist who
knows his way around Washington, as
evidenced by his previous employers—in
both governent and the private sector.
According to the New York Times,15 the
Food Research and Action Center (a
prominent anti-hunger group) led an
effort “to assemble a loose coalition of
food industry lobbyists and anti-hunger
groups opposed to restrictions on the
use of food stamps.” This coalition was
also coordinated by Michael Torrey.
According to James McCarthy, president
of the Snack Food Association, (whose
members include Kraft and Frito-Lay),
Michael Torrey was “under contract” with
the trade group.
In one lobbying report, Mr. Torrey said he
had received $30,000 from the Snack
Food Association to lobby Congress and
the administration on issues including
“the preservation of choice” in the food
stamp program.
Revolving door syndrome?
16
Prior to becoming a lobbyist in 2005, Michael Torrey’s employers included:
U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
(2003-2005)
INTERNATIONAL
DAIRY FOODS ASSOCIATION
(1998-2003)
SENATOR
BOB DOLE
(1993-1995)
KANSAS GRAIN
AND FEED ASSOCIATION
(1987-1990)
Torrey was listed as Treasurer for the Crop Insurance Research Bureau PAC17 (crop
insurance is a major issue in the 2012 Farm Bill). His firm’s clients have included:18
DEAN FOODS
Largest U.S.
dairy processor
SNACK FOOD
ASSOCIATION
GROCERY
MANUFACTURERS
ASSOCIATION
WHOLE FOODS
MARKET
Food Stamps: Follow the Money Are Corporations Profiting from Hungry Americans?
Big Food donations to anti-hunger
groups: conflict of interest?
Among the most vocal opponents of
health-oriented improvements to SNAP
purchases are several national antihunger groups, each of which accepts
significant funding from major players
in the food industry. For example, Cargill,
the Food Marketing Institute, the Grocery
Manufacturers Association, Kellogg, Kroger,
Mars, PepsiCo, and Walmart have all
donated to both the Congressional Hunger
Center19 and Feeding America,20 two groups
that strongly opposed the New York City
waiver application to USDA.
While it’s not clear exactly how such
relationships might influence policy
positions, the potential for conflict exists.
Other groups that do not take corporate
money also oppose SNAP waivers to
modify product purchases.
Yum! Brands’ failed attempt to
expand food stamps for fast food
In September 2011, Yum! Brands, the owner
of KFC, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut, lobbied to
expand SNAP for fast food, but retreated
after public outcry and a cool reception
from USDA.21 Currently, states can decide
to allow SNAP purchases in restaurants, but
only for the homeless, elderly, and disabled
populations that may have difficulty
preparing meals. To date, only a handful of
states utilize this option and Yum! wanted
more to come on board. The National
Restaurant Association was in favor of
the idea but the National Association of
Convenience Stores opposed, their lobbyist
telling USA Today, “I’m not sure that’s in the
best interest of public health.”22
12
Meanwhile, Ed Cooney, executive director
of the Congressional Hunger Center
defended the move against critics, saying
fast food was better than going hungry and
that he was “solidly behind what Yum! is
doing.” Food Politics author and New York
University Professor Marion Nestle called
Cooney’s position a conflict of interest,
asking: “Want to take a guess at who funds
the Congressional Hunger Center? Yum! is
listed as a ‘Sower,’ meaning that its annual
gift is in the range of $10,000. I’m guessing
Yum! is delighted that it is getting such
good value at such low cost.”23
State-level lobbying
In the wake of the New York City waiver
request to USDA, a number of states
have taken similar interest in how SNAP
dollars should be spent, with the aim of
improving nutrition. At least nine states
have introduced legislation proposing
health-oriented changes to SNAP.
Because USDA has jurisdiction over how
SNAP dollars are spent, states cannot
simply mandate changes.
Instead, many state bills have taken a
two-step approach: 1) require that the
appropriate state agency apply to USDA
for a waiver; 2) assuming the waiver is
granted, describe how the state would
then improve SNAP purchases. The ideas
range from using other food assistance
programs (such as WIC) as a guide, to
specifying certain items that shouldn’t be
allowed, such as cupcakes.
To date, none of these bills have made it
through the legislative process, thanks to
heavy pushback from the food industry.
For example, in California, State Senator
Food Stamps: Follow the Money Are Corporations Profiting from Hungry Americans?
Michael Rubio encountered a flurry of
opposition to his bill, SB 471. The California
Restaurant Association (CRA) reported
to its members that the bill “would have
prohibited the use of food stamps to buy
junk food and specified that restaurant food
would fall under the definition ‘junk food.’”24
The restaurant group lobbied forcefully
at the beginning of the session and CRA
succeeded in securing an amendment
from Rubio to exclude restaurants. The
California Grocers Association also weighed
in, arguing the plan would be “entirely
unworkable” for supermarkets.25
In Illinois, a bill by State Senator Linda
Holmes proposed “a general ban on the
use of SNAP benefits to purchase foods
of minimal nutritional value.”26 Due to
opposition, the measure, according
to Holmes, “did not make it out of the
Assignments Committee, which means
it is dead.”27
Among those opposed were the Illinois
Food Retailers Association and the Illinois
Retail Merchants Association. “Rather than
restricting foods,” a representative of the
food retailers explained, they would prefer
to “allow and encourage the more frequent
purchase of fresh fruits and vegetables.
Who determines what is in and what is
out? Who stays on top of all these new
products? This would be an administrative
nightmare for the grocery industry.”28
13
State focus: Florida
In Florida in early January 2012,
Republican State Senator Ronda Storms
introduced SB 1658, which proposed
“expanding the list of items that may not
be purchased,” and “prohibiting the use
of benefits in restaurants,” among other
provisions.29 (Florida currently has a pilot
program in just one county for SNAP use
in restaurants.30) Storms probably wasn’t
prepared for what happened next.
As the New York Times’ Mark Bittman
reported, “Soon after Storms proposed
the bill, she told me, ’Coca-Cola and Kraft
were in my office hating it.’”31
Storms also told Fox News that the
biggest opponents she faced were “CocaCola, the soda companies, the chip
companies, and the convenience store
operators. Why is that? Because they know
they are raking it in from food stamps.”32
Groups that lobbied against Florida SB 165833
Coca-Cola
Corn Refiners of America
Florida Beverage Association
Florida Petroleum Marketers
Florida Retail Federation34
Kraft Foods
Food Stamps: Follow the Money Are Corporations Profiting from Hungry Americans?
14
States attempting to pass SNAP improvement bills35
California SB 471 Requires State (to extent permitted by federal law) to “modify the list
of allowable food items…so that no CalFresh benefits may be used to purchase sweetened
beverages containing more than 10 calories per cup [with exceptions].” (2011)
Florida SB 1658 Would add to the list of prohibited items: “foods containing trans fats;
sweetened beverages, including sodas; sweets, such as jello, candy, ice cream, pudding, popsicles,
muffins, sweet rolls, cakes, cupcakes, pies, cobblers, pastries, and doughnuts; and salty snack
foods, such as corn-based salty snacks, pretzels, party mix, popcorn, and potato chips.” (2012)
Illinois HB 1480 Requires State to seek a waiver from USDA “to allow the State to specify
certain foods that may and may not be purchased in Illinois… including a general ban on the use
of SNAP benefits to purchase foods of minimal nutritional value such as carbonated soft drinks,
snack cakes, candies, chewing gum, flavored ice bars, and fried, high-fat chips.” (2011)
Iowa HF 288 Would request authorization from USDA “to allow the state to restrict the use of
food assistance benefits for food items with a low nutritional value.” (2011)
Oregon HB 3098 Requires State to ensure that SNAP benefits “may not be used to purchase
foods that contain high levels of refined sugar, such as candy, soda, energy drinks, cookies, and
other similar foods prescribed...” (2011)
Nebraska LB 267 Requires State to seek a waiver from USDA to limit SNAP beverage
purchases “to milk, one-hundred-percent juice, and plain water.” (2011)
Pennsylvania HR 59 (resolution) Requests that Congress change SNAP so that it “more
closely tracks with the WIC Program in terms of healthy choices for people.” (2011)
Texas HB 3451 Would seek a waiver from USDA “to restrict the purchase of food items with
minimal nutritional value … by amending the list of allowable food items under the program
to better align that list with the allowable food purchases under” WIC and the school lunch
program, and cites to the relevant federal statutes. (2011)
Vermont HJR 13 (resolution) Urges USDA “to authorize each state to create its own list of
foods eligible for purchase” with SNAP funds or “authorize a demonstration project allowing the
state of Vermont to develop its own list.” (2011)
Food Stamps: Follow the Money Are Corporations Profiting from Hungry Americans?
15
LACK OF DATA ON SNAP PURCHASES
There are two types of data the public
currently does not have access to that
would give us a much clearer picture
regarding SNAP expenditures: 1) retailerspecific; and 2) product-specific.
USDA does not make public how much
each store gets reimbursed, although it
does have this data (as do the states).
We only know totals by category of
retailer (see below), or upon request, by
zip code. Also, USDA does not currently
have legal authority to require retailers
to report specific purchase data for
products. USDA only knows the dollar
amount of each SNAP participant
transaction. Such data is critical to
evaluating SNAP effectiveness as well as
to inform policy discussions on how to
encourage healthier SNAP purchases.
How much SNAP money is spent at which retailers?
In 2010, a journalist in Massachusetts
made an information request that
caused quite a stir. Michael Morisy, who
runs the site MuckRock.com—a service
to help reporters and others file public
record requests—sent a simple request
to the state of Massachusetts: “The four
years of food stamp reimbursement
data through the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
from financial year 2006 through
financial year 2009.”36
The state honored the request, providing
Morisy with the names and addresses of
each store, along with the dollar amount
of SNAP funds spent at each store. Morisy
promptly made the information public
on his website. But a few months later,
Massachusetts officials sent an email to
Morisy warning him that the information
on individual retailer redemptions was
“posted in violation of federal law” and
claimed the data was “erroneously
released” by the Massachusetts
Department of Transitional Assistance, the
agency handing the request. The message,
signed by the acting general counsel of
the Department of Transitional Assistance
cited a federal statute and threatened
that “[f]ailure to remove this information
may result in fines or imprisonment.”37
According to the Boston Globe, USDA
was behind the attempted data recall. The
state said they should have known the
information was not supposed to be made
Did You Know...?
Nationwide, there were about 230,000
SNAP-authorized retailers in 2011.38 Although
supermarkets and supercenters make up less
than a quarter of SNAP retailers, more than
83 percent of SNAP benefits are spent there;
convenience stores make up one-third of all
authorized retailers but account for just four
percent of expenditures.39
Food Stamps: Follow the Money Are Corporations Profiting from Hungry Americans?
16
public. The Globe also tried to ask USDA
for further explanation: “Two Agriculture
Department officials were unable to
answer questions yesterday about why
the type of information published on
MuckRock cannot be released.”40 Why
indeed? The state, facing outcry from First
Amendment lawyers defending Morisy’s
right to post the data, soon dropped the
legal threat, claiming it was just relaying
information from USDA.41
“In general, the federal government shares
The complete Massachusetts dataset can
be found in an interesting Google fusion
table.42 In one fiscal year (2009/2010)
the nine Walmart Supercenters in
Massachusetts received more than $33
million in SNAP benefits—more than
four times the amount spent at farmers
markets nationwide in 2010.43 That figure
does not even include the other many
Walmart stores in the state.44
retailers as public information rather than
In his current quest for more SNAP data,
this time directly from USDA, Morisy
is asking for ten years of food stamp
reimbursement data (2000 to 2010)
including retailer names, addresses, cities,
state, and reimbursement sums broken
down by year.
So far, USDA has rejected the request,
but Morisy’s appeal of that denial is still
pending. USDA says it is “not allowed
to release any financial information”
and that “redemption amounts, or EBT
sales figures, for each store… may [only]
be disclosed for purposes directly
connected with the administration and
enforcement of the Food Stamp Act
and these regulations.”45 The reason for
this is unclear. As Tufts University food
economics professor Parke Wilde noted
at the time of Morisy’s original request:
information about the location of SNAP
retailers but not the amount of redemptions
at each retailer. According to the Boston
Globe today, it is possible that the data
were released in error, and MuckRock may
have to take down the data. This would
be too bad. Just as the farm subsidies
received by individual farmers are subject
to freedom-of-information rules, and can be
shared with the public, it seems reasonable
to think of SNAP benefit payments to
fully private business information. Perhaps
a reasonable compromise would be to
stipulate a threshold for small retailers
below which the exact dollar amount need not be made public.”46
Walmart receives half of all SNAP dollars in Oklahoma
Given the company’s scope, it makes
sense that Walmart would be a huge
beneficiary of SNAP spending. But just
how much remains unclear. Walmart
has become the nation’s largest grocery
chain, controlling 22-24 percent of food
retail, which is the biggest share of
any food retailer in history and bigger
than the next three retailers combined.
In addition, in 29 metropolitan areas,
Walmart controls 50 percent or more of
the grocery market.47
Last year, reporters in Tulsa, Oklahoma
were able to access detailed data
covering a two-year period from the
state health department. This report
represents a rare glimpse into how
SNAP dollars get spent in one state and
begins to paint the picture of Walmart’s
significant role. As they discovered,
nearly half of all food stamp spending in
Food Stamps: Follow the Money Are Corporations Profiting from Hungry Americans?
Oklahoma was at Walmart. According to
the Tulsa World:48
Much of the nearly $1.2 billion in food
stamp expenditures went to Walmart
stores, which brought in about $506
million between July 2009 and March
2011, according to data supplied by the
Oklahoma Department of Human Services.
The table below shows the enormity
of Walmart’s reach in just this one area
compared to several other outlets. The
Tulsa paper reported that six Walmart
stores were among the state’s topten recipients of SNAP dollars, and
Warehouse Markets (a local chain) held
the other four spots.
The paper also reported individual store
expenditures. One Walmart Supercenter
in Tulsa received $15.2 million while
another (also in Tulsa) took in close
to $9 million. Even a smaller “Walmart
Neighborhood Market” received $6.6
million while a Walmart outside of town
Oklahoma store
SNAP receipts
Wal-Mart
$506 million
Warehouse Market
$65 million
Homeland stores
$67 million
Reasor’s
$31 million
Dollar General
$25 million
Save-a-Lot
$24 million
7-Eleven
$12 million
QuikTrip
$10 million
Source: Oklahoma Department of Human
Services, mid-2009 to early 2011
17
“A very significant
percentage of all SNAP
dollars are spent in
Walmart stores, in some
states up to fifty percent”
- LESLIE DACH
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF
CORPORATE AFFAIRS, WALMART49
(Glenpool) received more than $3 million,
all in less than a two-year period.
It’s not surprising so much SNAP money
is being spent at Walmart and the retailer
does sell a variety of foods. However,
the Massachusetts and Oklahoma data
raises questions about how much SNAP
is subsidizing this huge corporation.
Also, without data on product purchases
(discussed in the next section), we don’t
know if Walmart is contributing to the
health of SNAP participants, or potentially
undermining the program’s nutrition goals.
How much SNAP money is spent on soda and other products?
The Center for Science in the Public
Interest reported in 2010 that $4 billion in
SNAP dollars is spent on soft drinks each
year50 and this figure has been repeated
many times since,51 particularly regarding
the New York City waiver request.
However, this unpublished data is
based on extrapolations from one
supermarket chain that shared its data
with CSPI anonymously. We should
not be making important public policy
recommendations and decisions based
Food Stamps: Follow the Money Are Corporations Profiting from Hungry Americans?
on secret anecdotal data. Rather, we
should be gathering comprehensive data
from the entities that are have it or could
gain access to it: USDA and retailers.
Current USDA contract aims to
collect SNAP purchase data?
Last year, USDA issued a “request for
information” apparently to companies
who could gather and report SNAP
purchase data.52 Several vendors applied
and a company called IMPAQ won the
contract for $739,802.53 What is this
company doing for that much money?
USDA officials declined our request to find
out, saying they were “not at liberty to
discuss any part of the contract.”54 (The company wouldn’t tell us either.)
From a Q&A on the USDA website, it
appears that USDA knows little about
18
SNAP purchase data: “We are aware
of several commercial datasets, but
don’t have a firm grasp of the variety,
price, and variables available in such
datasets.” It seems ironic that in a time
of fiscal restraint that USDA needs to
pay a third party to find out how to get
this data.
Last December, Senator Ron Wyden (DOR) introduced the FRESH Act (Fresh
Regional Eating for Schools and Health),
which aims to, among other provisions,
“increase accountability” in the SNAP
program by requiring corporations
receiving more than $1 million a year
“to provide taxpayers with an itemized
receipt for their share” of the SNAP
program.55 This seems like a perfectly
appropriate proposal, but so far the bill
has not moved forward.
Food Stamps: Follow the Money Are Corporations Profiting from Hungry Americans?
19
BANKS AND SNAP EBT FEES
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, as part
of a larger shift toward privatizing welfare
systems and putting benefits on ATMstyle Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT)
cards, states across the country began
contracting out the administration of
food stamp and welfare benefits. (SNAP
was required to completely convert to
EBT by 2002.) Each state—some teaming
up in regional purchasing alliances—pays
an outside firm to handle its EBT systems
and facilitate SNAP transactions—an
apparently profitable market that has
attracted several large banks.
EBT is not only used for SNAP but also
for other programs such as Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).
The national EBT market is dominated by
J.P. Morgan Electronic Financial Services
(a subsidiary of J.P. Morgan Chase Bank),
which has contracts in 24 states along
with Guam and the Virgin Islands. When
a single provider has such significant
market share, it suggests limited
competition and excessive market power.
Other corporations in the EBT market
include Affiliated Computer Services
(a subsidiary of Xerox) which runs 13
state EBT systems; Fidelity National
Information Services, handling 11 states
and Washington, D.C.; defense contractor
Northrop Grumman operating EBT in
Illinois and Montana, and Evertec with the
contract for Puerto Rico.56
How much money do the banks make from EBT fees?
In 2010, SNAP EBT operating and
equipment costs (split 50-50 between
the states and the federal government,
as are all SNAP administrative costs)
amounted to more than $314 million,
according to USDA data. California
incurred the highest costs, topping $65
million, with the next highest being New
York State at more than $21 million.57
However, no national-level data is
available on the total value of the states’
EBT contracts with the banks. In emails,
officials at the USDA Food and Nutrition
Service confirmed there is no national
monitoring of contracts, other than
the counting of total participants and
expenditures.58 So we made public record
requests to a handful states, for both
contracts and fee payments.
Each state EBT contract is different,
depending on state laws and the
contracting company. In general, the
companies obtain multi-million-dollar
deals over a several-year period, but the
terms evolve through change orders and
amendments that can increase or diminish
the state’s payments. The companies
are generally paid monthly on a perparticipant basis for an array of services
including benefits disbursement, customer
support, and other services.
Food Stamps: Follow the Money Are Corporations Profiting from Hungry Americans?
In the states we examined, contracts for
providing EBT and related services range
in term from 5-7 years, often with renewal
clauses ranging from 1-3 years. Such
relatively long contract and renewal periods
suggest limited competition in the market
for EBT services.
Although state contracts are public
record, they do not clarify exactly
how the contracting firms turn a profit
from EBT, and what those profits are.
Likewise, the Securities and Exchange
Commission filings from the publiclytraded corporations in the EBT market,
such as J.P. Morgan Chase, do not itemize
revenues from EBT business.
In other words, although we were able
to obtain several state contracts for this
report, information about exactly how
much profit the banks make from this
large tax-payer program, at a time when
Congress is threatening cuts to those in
need, remains unavailable.
J.P. Morgan Electronic Financial
Services: Sampling from three states59
Florida: 5-year agreement due to
terminate June 2013 unless renewed. 20
For this 5-year period, the estimated
cost is $83.5 million—about $16.7 million
a year. (Note: all contract totals are for all
EBT services, but most of this is SNAP.)
Fees from July 2008 to December 2011,
covering 3.5 years of the 5 year contract,
have already topped $80 million.
Assuming monthly fees in 2012 and 2013
are exactly the same as in 2011, the total
fees for the contract period would top
$123 million, a more than 50 percent
increase over the original contract.
New York (see table below and appendix):
7-year deal from 2005 through 2012,
pays the bank $112 million; was recently
amended (just a few months prior to the
contract end date) to add $14.3 million,
upping the total amount to $126 million. As
in Florida, New York is paying more (nearly
13%) than the state budgeted for, and J.P.
Morgan is receiving more than the bank
anticipated at the outset of the contract.
The New York contract offers a discount
based on volume, charging fees ranging
from $1.01 to $1.32 per case. Due to high
volume, the state has been paying $1.01
per SNAP beneficiary per month, after
hitting the top tier of 1.5 million cases.
EBT fees on the rise: J.P. Morgan in New York and Florida
STATE
TERM CONTRACT VALUE*
PROJECTED FEES**
% INCREASE
Florida
5 years
$83 million
$123 million
50%
New York
7 years
$112 million
$149 million
33%
* as estimated at the outset of the contract (all programs)
** assuming contract costs continue at current levels until contract expiration
Food Stamps: Follow the Money Are Corporations Profiting from Hungry Americans?
Washington: The state’s seven-year,
$74.3 million EBT contract with J.P.
Morgan expired on April 28, 2012.60 We
received data for monthly payments to
the bank for May 2011 to March 2012.
Total payments during this 11-month
period were $9.5 million, averaging
$864,439 per month.
Additional bank contracts
In 2008, California signed a 7-year contract
with Affiliated Computer Services worth
$69 million, to administer EBT to roughly
900,000 participants.61
In Arkansas, for 2011, the state paid its
EBT contractor, eFunds, $1.8 million
in fees, slightly below the incremental
budget provided in the contract
amendment of $1.9 million.
Montana’s contract with Northrop
Grumman, signed in 2010, began as
a 9-month arrangement worth $1.28
million. In 2011 the state agreed to a oneyear extension with new terms, totaling
$2.53 million—an increase of $1.33 million
over the initial terms.
Northrop Grumman’s contract with
Illinois is for $36 million over 5 years, to
administer EBT to 600,000 participants.62
Outsourcing call centers to India and Mexico?
Until news reports caused embarrassment
over the practice, many states outsourced
their support services to international
call centers. The arrangements
produced widespread ire: outsourcing is
controversial generally, with the added
21
irony of shipping off jobs offshore while
administering public benefits.
According to one 2011 news account:
To save money, J.P. Morgan has been
routing benefit card customer service
calls to India, where employees reportedly
earn no more than three-fifty an hour.
Meanwhile, in the U.S. abyss of economic
hardship, nearly 14 million Americans are
unemployed. J.P. Morgan has refused to
say which states dial up customer service
centers in India.63
While USDA recently investigated the
practice and concluded that most states
have either stopped outsourcing overseas
or were phasing it out, it’s unclear if all
states have done so.64 For example, a
document from the Washington State
Department of Health and Social Services
explains: “The state’s seven-year, $74.3
million EBT contract with JP Morgan …
covers a broad range of EBT services,
including customer service assistance
through three subcontracted offshore call
centers in India and Mexico.”65
The document further detailed the
outsourcing:
The system transfers most callers who
ask for a live operator to India (Pune or
Bangalore). Spanish-speaking customers
are connected to the customer service
center in Mexico (Tijuana).66
In Florida, after outcry over EBT
contractor J.P. Morgan Chase outsourcing
its support call centers abroad, the
state and the bank signed an amended
agreement in 2009 stipulating that call
centers would be domestic.
Food Stamps: Follow the Money Are Corporations Profiting from Hungry Americans?
22
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The original Food Stamp Program was
created to provide both a new market
for farmers’ surplus crops and relief for
Americans living in poverty. However, the
current program bears little resemblance
to that original vision. As the largest
government-funded agriculture program
in the nation, SNAP presents a tremendous
opportunity to help improve the health
of tens of millions of Americans and to
reshape our food system in a positive way.
And yet many powerful corporations are
fighting to maintain the status quo.
Need for greater transparency
At a time when millions of Americans are in
dire financial straits, we should be asking,
has this critical food assistance program
become a massive corporate subsidy to
help rich companies get richer? How can
we improve SNAP to maximize government
benefits for those in need? And how can we
make this large taxpayer-funded program
more accountable and transparent?
Instead of debating cuts to food assistance,
Congress should be helping people—not
corporations—get the most out of this
vital program. Some advocates fear that
describing SNAP participants’ buying
habits could present more opportunities
to judge and stigmatize. Obviously, this
would be counter-productive, especially
when cuts to the program are being
considered. But fear should not keep us
accurately evaluating the effectiveness
of SNAP, particularly given the program’s
great potential for positive impact. Data
gathering would actually benefit program
participants by giving us vital information
to make improvements, and evaluate
nutrition interventions such as SNAP-Ed,
the educational arm of the program.
Make private information public
USDA should be more transparent with
the information it has, and should collect
and share data on product purchases
and bank fees. We need to know how
much money is spent, for example, on
product categories such as soft drinks,
and more specifically, how much money
is spent on Coke, Gatorade, Capri Sun, or
Poland Spring? While USDA does not have
this information, the retailers certainly
do. Indeed, such data is a high-priced
commodity traded among industry players.
The consumer and advertising data mining
company Nielson says it processes “2
billion electronic records from 200,000
retail outlets per week.”67 Why should
only private entities with financial interest
in SNAP have access to information that
significantly impacts public health?
We also need more transparency regarding
bank fees. Questions loom about how
much of a burden states are bearing from
upticks in enrollment during hard times.
Are the EBT contracts being negotiated
Food Stamps: Follow the Money Are Corporations Profiting from Hungry Americans?
fairly, or are banks taking advantage? How
do bank profits impact public costs and
available resources for participants?
Access to healthy food
Many opposed to removing soda and
other junk foods from the list of eligible
SNAP products argue that we should
instead focus on incentives to encourage
healthier food purchases. Initiatives such
as New York City’s local governmentfunded Health Bucks program and Double
Up Food Bucks in Michigan are innovative
approaches to helping SNAP participants
eat more healthfully. But because they
rely on external funding, their long-term
sustainability is uncertain.
The lack of sufficient access to affordable
healthy food remains a serious problem.
Improvements to other food assistance
23
programs may be instructive. Requiring
healthier foods in the Women’s, Infants,
and Children’s program resulted in more
of these foods being made available by
retailers.68 Whether or not such a model
makes sense for SNAP is the sort of
discussion that merits deeper inquiry.
Moving forward
The debate over making health-oriented
improvements to SNAP purchases is
currently at a standstill. On one side are
those who insist soda is not a food, while
others argue such policy changes only
hurt those in need. We must go beyond
this rhetoric and examine the extent to
which SNAP has become a corporate
subsidy. Then advocates should work
together to make improvements to SNAP
that will truly benefit participants.
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Congress should not cut SNAP benefits in this time of extreme need
• USDA should disclose retailer redemptions on SNAP; Congress should require that USDA regularly report on these numbers
• Congress should mandate that USDA collect and make public product purchase data; Congress should pass Senator Ron Wyden’s bill, which includes such a requirement
• USDA should collect data on bank fees to assess and evaluate national costs and share this data with the public
• USDA should evaluate state contracts to determine if banks are taking undue advantage of taxpayer funds
• USDA should grant waiver requests from states that want to experiment with making
health-oriented improvements to SNAP
• Anti-hunger groups should eliminate or disclose potential conflicts of interest when taking a public position regarding SNAP policy.
Food Stamps: Follow the Money Are Corporations Profiting from Hungry Americans?
24
APPENDIX
Quick SNAP facts69
• Participation in SNAP significantly reduces the depth and severity of child poverty
• Nearly half of SNAP participants are children
• Half of all new SNAP participants leave the program within 10 months
• One-third of children participating in school lunch also receive SNAP benefits
• In fiscal year 2011, SNAP provided an average of $134 to 44.7 million people each month
• About 41 percent of SNAP participants live in households with earnings
• 230,000 retailers are approved for SNAP redemption nationally
• SNAP benefits moved 13 percent of households above the poverty line in 2010
• Administrative costs are shared between states and the federal government
SNAP participation closely follows poverty and unemployment70
Millions of Persons
50
40
30
20
10
0
1960
1964
1968
1972
1976
Unemployed Persons
1980
1984
1988
SNAP Participants
1992
1996
2000
2004
Persons in poverty
2008
Food Stamps: Follow the Money Are Corporations Profiting from Hungry Americans?
25
Healthy eating index scores by subgroups: 1999 to 2004
Healthy Eating Index
How do SNAP participants’ diets compare to other Americans? According to USDA’s Healthy Eating Index,71
they are pretty similar, which is hardly good news.
80
60
40
20
0
63 68 69
58
52 56
53 53 56
59
51 57
All Ages
Children
Working-Aged Adults
SNAP Participants
Income-Eligible Nonparticipants
Older Adults
Higher-Income Nonparticipants
New York State EBT fees to JP Morgan Chase over 5 years tops $100 million72
Total fees (all programs)
% growth over previous
year
SNAP
fees
% of
total
% growth over previous
year
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
TOTAL
$15. 7M
$18.1M
$21.5M
$23.7M
$25.4M
$104.4M
– 15%19%10% 7% –
$12.2M $13.1M $15.7M $18.2M$19.5M$78.7M
77%72%73%77%77%73%
–
8% 20%16% 7%
–
Food Stamps: Follow the Money Are Corporations Profiting from Hungry Americans?
26
REFERENCES
1. Klein, Ezra. “Gingrich says Obama is the ‘food stamp president.’ Is he?” Washington Post, January 18, 2012,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/gingrich-says-obama-is-the-food-stamp-president-is-he/2012/01/18/
gIQA1Ino8P_blog.html
2. USDA Food and Nutrition Service, “SNAP Monthly Data,” March 1, 2012, http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/34snapmonthly.htm
3. Congressional Budget Office, “An Overview of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,” April 19, 2012, http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43175
4. Young, Edwin, Oliveira, Victor, Claassen, Roger, “The 2008 Farm Act: Where Will the Money Go?” Amber Waves, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, November, 2008, http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/November08/DataFeature/
5. Schumacher, G., Nischan, M. & Simon, D. (2011) “Healthy Food Access and Affordability: We Can Pay the Farmer or We Can Pay the Hospital,” Maine Policy Review, 20, 124-139
6. “Granger, Food Stamp Director, To Have Office in New York,” The Herald Statesmen, August 19, 1941
7. Senator Douglas (D-IL) Food Stamps, Congressional Record, June 30, 1964
8. Schumacher, op. cit
9. Pear, Robert, “Soft Drink Industry Fights Proposed Food Stamp Ban,” New York Times, Apri; 29, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/30/us/politics/30food.html
10. Various news reports, including Pear, op cit
11. “PepsiCo spent $750K lobbying in 3Q,” Yahoo News, December 22, 2011, http://finance.yahoo.com/news/PepsiCo-spent-750K-lobbying-apf-2336668858.html
12. Secretary of the Senate Office of Public Records, “Lobbying Report,” 2011, http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=CAEDB4C7-C54A-4F16-AE37-3DB7FA1AACF4
13. National Confectioners Association, “Industry Issues Index,” as of June 14, 2011, http://www.candyusa.com/PublicPolicy/IndustryIssueDetail.cfm?ItemNumber=4034 (note: link no longer exists, updated on June 1, 2012, http://www.candyusa.com/PublicPolicy/IndustryIssueDetail.cfm?ItemNumber=4395
14. Quarterly reports pulled from opensecrets.org (not an exhaustive list)
15. Pear, op cit
16. Center for Responsive Politics, “Revolving Door: Michael Torrey: Employment History,” http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/rev_summary.php?id=7669
17. Center for Responsive Politics, “PACS: Crop Insurance Research Bureau Summary,” http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00150805&cycle=2012
18. impluCorporation, “Michael Torrey Associates, LLC,” http://www.implu.com/lobby_firm/5514
19. Congressional Hunger Center, “Major Donors,” http://www.hungercenter.org/donate/partners-and-supporters/major-donors/
20. Feeding America, “Leadership Partners,” http://feedingamerica.org/how-we-fight-hunger/our-partners/leadership-partners.aspx
21. Patton, Leslie, “Yum! Brands Says It Won’t Expand Food Stamp Use at KFC, Taco Bell,” Bloomberg, November 18, 2011, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-18/yum-won-t-expand-food-stamp-use-at-kfc.html
22. Ellis, Jonathan & Megan Luther, “Restaurants want a piece of the food stamp pie,” USA Today, September 7, 2011, http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2011-09-05-food-stamps-restaurants-Yum-Brands_n.htm
23. Nestle, Marion, “It’s OK to use food stamps to buy fast food? Better check for conflicts of interest,” Food Politics, September 13, 2011, http://www.foodpolitics.com/2011/09/its-ok-to-use-food-stamps-to-buy-fast-food-better-check-for-conflict-of-interest/
Food Stamps: Follow the Money Are Corporations Profiting from Hungry Americans?
27
24. Dunbar, Laura, “Advocacy in 2011 will make a difference in the new year,” The Restaurant Standard, December 2011, http://www.therestaurantstandard.com/therestaurantstandard/201112?pg=7#pg7
25. Van Oot, Torey, “Rookie lawmaker takes legislative odyssey with food bill,” Sacramento Bee, May 10, 2011, http://www.modbee.com/2011/05/10/1681680_rookie-lawmaker-takes-legislative.html
26. Illinois General Assembly, “Bill Status of SB1956 – 97th General Assembly,” http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=1956&GAID=11&GA=97&DocTypeID=SB&LegID=58106&SessionID=84
27. Email correspondence from State Sen. Linda Holmes, March 2, 2012
28. Email correspondence with Brian Jordan, Illinois Food Retailers Association, March 2, 2012. Also see Illinois Retail Merchants Association, “This week in Springfield – 97-06,” March 18, 2011, http://irma.org/this-week-in-springfield-97-06/
29. Florida State Legislature, “Florida Legislature-Regular Session-2012, History of Senate Bills,” May 14, 2012, http://www.leg.state.fl.us/data/session/2012/citator/Daily/senhist.pdf
30. Nestle, Marion, “Clarification of yesterday’s post on using SNAP for fast food,” Food Politics, September 14, 2011, http://www.foodpolitics.com/2011/09/clarification-of-point-in-yesterdays-post-on-snap-for-restaurant-meals/
31. Bittman, Mark, “Regulating Our Sugar Habit,” New York Times, February 26, 2012, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/regulating-our-sugar-habit/
32. “House Puts Candy, Chips, Soda Back in Public Assistance Bill,” North Escambia, February 14, 2012, http://www.northescambia.com/2012/02/house-puts-candy-chips-soda-back-in-public-assistance-bill
33. Pulled from various news reports including Bittman, op cit
34. Florida Retail Federation, “Federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),” March 9, 2012, http://www.frf.org/index.php/government-affairs/legislative-issues/grocery/federal-supplemental-nutritional-assistance-programsnap
35. Bills in author’s possession. Not an exhaustive list, current as of Feb 2011. See also “State SNAP Legislation,” April 8, 2011, http://www.docstoc.com/docs/96375116/Summary-of-SNAP-Waivers-482011#
36. “FOI Request: SNAP Food Stamp Reimbursements for FY 2006-FY 2009,” MuckRock, August 8, 2010, http://www.muckrock.com/foi/view/massachusetts/snap-food-stamp-reimbursements-for-fy-2006-fy-2009/133/
37. “Regarding our SNAP (food stamp) data,” MuckRock Primary Sources, November 10, 2010, http://www.muckrock.com/blog/regarding-our-snap-food-stamp-data/
38. USDA Food and Nutrition Service, “Building a Healthy America: A Profile of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,” April 2012, http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/published/snap/snap.htm
39. USDA FNS, Office of Research and Analysis, “Benefit Redemption Patterns in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,” February, 2012, http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/snap/FILES/ProgramOperations/ARRASpendingPatterns.pdf
40. Bierman, Noah. “State tells man he may be jailed for releasing data,” Boston Globe, November 11, 2010, http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/11/11/state_tells_man_he_may_be_jailed_for_releasing_data/
41. Saltzman, Jonathan, “State cools threat to blogger over food stamp post,” Boston Globe, November 12, 2010, http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/11/12/state_cools_threat_to_blogger_over_food_stamp_post/
42. “SNAP Redemptions FY06-FY09,” Google Fusion Tables, http://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?snapid=89115
43. USDA Food and Nutrition Service, “We Welcome SNAP - Putting Healthy Food Within Reach: Benefit Redemption Division
2010 Annual Report,” 2010, http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/retailers/pdfs/2010-annual-report.pdf
44. Also see the dataset here: “FOI Request: SNAP Food Stamp Reimbursements for January – May 2010,” MuckRock, June 6,
2010, http://www.muckrock.com/foi/view/massachusetts/food-stamp-reimbursements-for-january-may-2010/11/
45. “FOI Request: SNAP Food Stamp Reimbursements for FY 2000 – FY 2010,” MuckRock, April 18, 2011, http://www.muckrock.com/foi/view/united-states-of-america/snap-food-stamp-reimbursements-for-fy-2000-fy-2010/534/
46. Wilde, Park, “SNAP (food stamp) purchase amounts at individual Massachusetts retailers,” U.S. Food Policy, November 11, 2010,
http://usfoodpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/11/snap-food-stamp-purchase-amounts-at.html
47. Briody, Brady, “Undercover Reporter Shares the Secrets of Working At Walmart And Applebee’s,” Business Insider, March 2, 2012, http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-03-02/news/31115675_1_food-supply-food-supply-low-prices#ixzz1urwlwnnX
48. Graham, Ginnie & Gavin Off, “Food stamps equal big money,” Tulsa World, April 24, 2011, http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20110424_11_A1_Retail460109&r=6977
Food Stamps: Follow the Money Are Corporations Profiting from Hungry Americans?
28
49. Kohan, Eddie Gehman, “USDA Announces Plans to Crack Down on Food Stamps Fraud, Improve Program Delivery,” Obama
Foodorama, December 6, 2011, http://obamafoodorama.blogspot.com/2011/12/usda-announces-plans-to-crack-down-on.html
50. Shenkin, Jonathan and Jacobson, Michael, “Using the Food Stamp Program and other methods to promote healthy diets for
low-income consumers.” American Journal of Public Health 2010;100(9):1562-4
51. See eg, Canada, Geoffrey, “NYC’s SNAP Sugary Beverage Ban Is the Right Idea,” Huffington Post, July 15, 2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-canada/nycs-snap-sugary-beverage_1_b_901480.html
52. “Request for Information (RFI) SNAP Food Purchases – Notice Details,” USDA Federal Business Opportunities, January 10, 2011, https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=b1e45e30605fc5dddf33cf73ef3138bc&tab=core&_cview=1
53. “Request for Information (RFI) SNAP Food Purchases – Interested Vendors List,” USDA Federal Business Opportunities,
January 10, 2011, https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=b1e45e30605fc5dddf33cf73ef3138bc&tab=ivl&tabmode=list; USDA
Contract Award number: AG-3198-D-11-0050
54. Email communication with USDA, January 15, 2012. But we did learn that the contract is supposed to be completed by
December 2013. Also, we submitted our own Freedom of Information Act request, which is overdue: “FOI Request: Contract
between USDA and IMPAQ for SNAP purchase data,” MuckRock, February 14, 2012, https://www.muckrock.com/foi/view/united-states-of-america/contract-between-usda-and-impaq-for-snap-purchase-data/1098/
55. “FRESH Act,” http://www.wyden.senate.gov/priorities/fresh-act
56. USDA Food and Nutrition Service, “Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) Status Report,” April 23, 2012, http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/ebt/ebt_status_report.htm
57. 2010 EBT expenditures, National Data Bank Version 8.2, USDA, FY 2010, in author’s possession
58. Correspondence with USDA FNS: “Unfortunately, we do not compile this information on a national level. The only source for this data would be from each of the States themselves.” - Daniel Wilusz, Acting Chief, Retailer Management and Issuance Branch,
February 29, 2012
59. Taken from various contract documents obtained through public records requests, in author’s possession
60. Washington Dept. of Health and Social Services, “Electronic Benefits Transfer Services,” August 7, 2009, http://www.leg.wa.gov/JointCommittees/SCTF/Documents/10-26_dshs.pdf
61. “ACS Signs $69 Million Contract With State of California,” PR Newswire via Reuters, April 21, 2008, http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/21/idUS93858+21-Apr-2008+PRN20080421
62. “Northrop Grumman Awards ACS Renewed Electronic Benefits Transfer Contract for the State of Illinois,” Xerox Newsroom, Feb. 8, 2008, http://news.xerox.com/pr/xerox/567665.aspx
63. “JP Morgan profiting off hungry Americans,” RT.com, February 18, 2011, http://rt.com/usa/news/jpmorgan-profiting-hungry-americans-usa/
64. USDA Office of Inspector General, “Controls over Outsourcing of Food and Nutrition Service’s Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program Electronic Benefits Transfer Call Centers,” June 2011, http://www.recovery.gov/Accountability/inspectors/Documents/27703-01-TE.pdf
65. Washington Dept. of Health and Social Services, “Electronic Benefits Transfer Services,” August 7, 2009
66. Ibid
67. Nielsen webpage, “2011 Year in Review,” http://www.nielsen.com/sitelets/yir/what_buy.htm
68. Andreyeva, Tatiana, et al, “Positive Influence of the Revised Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children Food Packages on Access to Healthy Foods,” J Acad Nutr Diet. 2012;112:850-858
69. USDA Food and Nutrition Service, “Building a Healthy America,” op cit
70. Ibid
71. Ibid
72. File in author’s possession